On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:27:29PM -0400 or thereabouts, Ren? Rh?aume wrote: > > Still probably no harm in having a minimalistic perl around in the > > portage tree. We just cant promote such ideas and being any part of > > proper embedded solutions due to file size and memory/cpu consumption > > that goes along with using perl itself. > Exactly, I would like a minimalistic Perl, not pushing Perl into > embedded systems really. I just thought embedded projects like cutting > the fat. Sorry for the inconvenience my wording caused. As miniperl > means trouble, I will try the perl-base way. > > > > Weather putting autotools on an embedded system is > > wrong or not... you can build a very small version of > > Perl if you are using uClibc. Then just control which > > perl packages you emerge. > I was writing about the main Perl package only, not the extra CPAN modules. >
I put perl on my embedded system, yes it was large, but I had the whole thing down to 26megs(cramfs) and it ran very well. I poked around with miniperl for about few hours and it became clear it wasn't worth the effort. I ended up just deleting the extraneous perl stuff after the install and it was down to around 8megs. I also needed some extra modules like IO-Socket and IO-Multicast, which would not have been easy to integrate with minperl. you can put perl on an embedded system and not go to jail i promise ;-).
pgpO3SqgtbljQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
